Judgment Jitendra Chauhan, J. 1. This appeal is preferred by Bihari Lal (appellant) against the judgment dated 17.07.2000 and order passed by the Special Judge, Hoshiarpur. Vide impugned judgment Bihari Lal appellant was convicted under Section 13(2) read with Section 7 of the Prevention and Corruption Act. The learned Special Judge sentenced the appellant to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of one year and to pay fine of `5000/- or in default of payment of fine to further undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of three months. 2. The gist of the prosecution story is that complainant Surjit Singh P.W.-3 was depot holder. He used to receive an essential commodities from the office of Food and Civil Supply, where the appellant had been working as Assistant District Food and Civil Supply Officer. On 24.02.1998 Surjit Singh P.W. filled up an indent for the supply of 3000 litres of kerosene oil and went to the office of the appellant. The complainant made a request for grant of permit. However, it is alleged that accused Bihari Lal demanded a bribe of Rs. 400/-. The complainant went to receive the permit where the appellant demanded to pay the amount after sometime. Thereafter, the complainant contacted the DSP Vigilance, who took a sum of Rs. 400/- from P.W. Surjit Singh. 3. P.W. Surjit Singh along with shadow witness were instructed to go the office of the accused Bihari Lal and the raiding party remained out side the office. P.W. Surjit Singh entered the door of the office of the accused Bihari Lal and Resham Singh shadow witness remained out side the office near the door of the office of the accused in verandah. P.W. Surjit Singh requested the accused to give permit of kerosene oil. The accused demanded Rs. 400/- from P.W. Surjit Singh gave currency notes of Rs. 400/- to the accused. P.W. Resham Singh shadow witness was watching the whole proceedings and he raised hand over his head and gave signal to the raiding party. DSP Vigilance Garib Dass P.W. 11 along with Jasbir Kumar and Malkiat Singh entered the office of the accused Bihari Lal who was sitting on the chair in front of his table. DSP Garib Dass disclosed his identity as DSP Vigilance to the accused Bihari Lal and told that he has accepted the bribe money from Surjit Singh. DSP Vigilance Garib Dass P.W. 11 along with Jasbir Kumar and Malkiat Singh entered the office of the accused Bihari Lal who was sitting on the chair in front of his table. DSP Garib Dass disclosed his identity as DSP Vigilance to the accused Bihari Lal and told that he has accepted the bribe money from Surjit Singh. Accused was apprehended by DSP Garib Dass from his arms. In the mean while P.W. Surjit Singh told the DSP that accused Bihari Lal had handed over the bribe money of Rs. 400/- to the accused Mohinder Singh office peon who was also standing in the office. DSP Garib Dass asked Ins.Malkiat Singh to apprehend the accused was apprehended by Ins.Malkiat Singh, Mohinder Singh accused thrown the brine money on the chair. Then a glass of water was arranged in which sodium carbonate powder was put and the colour of the water did not change. Then both the fingers of the hands of accused Bihari Lal were washed in the solution and the colour of the water changed into light pink. The solution was put in a nip and was sealed with the seal bearing impression MS and was taken into possession vide recovery memo Ex.PD. Then again a glass of water was arranged in which sodium carbonate powder was put and colour of the water did not change and then fingers of both the hands of accused Mohinder Singh were got washed in the solution and the colour of the water changed to light pink. The solution was put in a nip Ex.P6 which was made into the parcel and sealed with the seal bearing impression MS and was taken into possession vide recovery memo Ex.PE. The currency notes Ex.P1 to P4 of the denomination of Rs. 100/- were picked up from the chair by Jasbir Kumar P.W. and the number of the notes were tallied with the numbers of the notes in the recovery memo Ex.PC and the same tallied. The currency notes were taken into possession vide recovery memo Ex.PH. The record of the office was taken into possession vide recovery memo Ex.PJ. The indents are Ex.P7 to P9. The attendance register was taken into possession which is Ex.P9. On receipt of the report of AFSL, Forensic Science Laboratory Chandigarh Ex.PT and after obtaining sanction for the prosecution of the case Ex.PQ, accused were challaned. 4. The record of the office was taken into possession vide recovery memo Ex.PJ. The indents are Ex.P7 to P9. The attendance register was taken into possession which is Ex.P9. On receipt of the report of AFSL, Forensic Science Laboratory Chandigarh Ex.PT and after obtaining sanction for the prosecution of the case Ex.PQ, accused were challaned. 4. After completion of investigation the challan was presented against the appellant Bihari Lal and his co-accused Mohinder Singh (since acquitted), they were charged under Section 13(2) read with Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act to which they pleaded not guilty and claim trial. 5. In order to prove its case the prosecution examined. In order to prove its case, the prosecution has examined P.W.1 C. Ashwani Kumar No. 384, P.W.2 DSP Darshan Singh, P.W.3 Surjit Singh, P.W.4 DSP Malkiat Singh, P.W.5 HC Nirmal Singh, P.W.6 Roop Lal, P.W.7 Usha Rani, P.W.8 Jasbir Kumar, P.W.9 Surinder Singh, P.W.10 Kamal Kumar, P.W.11 Garib Dass DSP(Retired), P.W.12 Lehmber Singh Clerk and the prosecution closed its evidence. 6. In his statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. Bihari Lal appellant pleaded false implication and stated as under :- "I am innocent and have been falsely implicated in this case. I never demanded any money for complainant gave me any money as bribe. The reality is that a cultural programme Malkiat Night was organized by the Red Cross Authority Garhshanker and the tickets of the above said night was come in my office for sale, and the duty was imposed by the SDM Garhsanker for selling the same. The rates of the ticket was Rs. 200/-. Two tickets were soled to the complainant for the tune of Rs. 400/- and the same money was due against him. The complainant make the payment of Rs. 400/- to me of above said ticket and the police falsely roped me in this case. After case an enquiry was conducted by SDO (C) Garhshanker in which complainant gave affidavit which is mark-D1 on judicial file that he gave Rs. 400/- to me for the tickets. I was found innocent by the SDO Civil Garhshanker and later I was also found innocent by the DC Hoshiarpur, Shri G.S. Bains. Everything has been planted by the vigilance department. 400/- to me for the tickets. I was found innocent by the SDO Civil Garhshanker and later I was also found innocent by the DC Hoshiarpur, Shri G.S. Bains. Everything has been planted by the vigilance department. The complainant was asking me for raising of quota of kerosene oil to which I refused, due to which reason I have been falsely implicated in this case." 7. In defence Parkash Masih, Senior Assistant of the office of Director Food and Civil Supplies, Chandigarh was examined to prove letter Ex.DA. Krishan Lal, Reader to SDM Garhshankar DW2 was examined to prove letter No. 183 dated 1.3.1993 from the office of the SDM Garhshankar to the Deputy Commissioner, Hoshiarpur regarding the sale of tickets "Malkiat Night". He has proved letter Ex.DA to DE Ram Kumar PA to Deputy Commissioner, who was examined as DW3 to prove letter No. 38/PA/93 dated 19.4.1993 Ex.DF regarding withdrawal of the vigilance case registered against appellant Bihari Lal. Sh. G.S. Bains(Retired) Deputy Commissioner was examined as DW4. Satwant Singh Johal, Additional Deputy Commissioner Development was examined as DW5. Harmesh Raj, depot holder was examined DW6 to prove the affidavit Ex.DG furnished by DW3. Avinash Chand Bhatara, Notary Public proved sworning of affidavit Ex.DG by Surjit Singh P.W.. 8. The learned trial Court convicted and sentenced the appellant Bihari Lal as referred to above. Mohinder Singh co-accused was acquitted of the charge. Thus, the present appellant Bihari Lal has come up in this appeal. 9. During pendency of this appeal Bihari Lal-appellant expired on 3.07.2006 leaving behind Sheela Rani widow; Ashwani Kumar, Rajiv Kumar both sons; and Saroj Bala, Vinod Bala and Parmod Bala as daughters as his legal representatives. Death certificate was brought on record as Annexure A-I. The above legal representatives were brought on record vide order dated 13.12.2010 for the limited purpose of prosecuting this appeal. 10. The learned counsel for appellant submits that there is no direct evidence to connect the appellant with the alleged offence. Resham Singh, the shadow witness who was a crucial witness was withheld by the prosecution for the best reasons known to the prosecution so an adverse inference may be drawn against the prosecution. The learned counsel further submits that the enquiry conducted by the DSP Hoshiarpur and SDO(C) Garshankar proved that the appellant was innocent. Resham Singh, the shadow witness who was a crucial witness was withheld by the prosecution for the best reasons known to the prosecution so an adverse inference may be drawn against the prosecution. The learned counsel further submits that the enquiry conducted by the DSP Hoshiarpur and SDO(C) Garshankar proved that the appellant was innocent. The report submitted by the SDO Garshanker had been approved and accepted by the Deputy Commissioner, Hoshiarpur. The counsel for the appellant further stressed upon the fact that no such money was recovered from the possession of appellant Bihari Lal. Money, if any, is alleged to have been recovered from the possession of Mohinder Singh-since acquitted. He prays for the acceptance of the appeal and acquittal of the appellant. 11. On the other hand the learned State counsel submits that Surjit Singh P.W.3 has fully supported the case of the prosecution which is corroborated by DSP Malkiat Singh P.W.4 who had no axe to grind or any motive to falsely implicate Bihari Lal, the appellant. The State counsel submits that the charges against appellant Bihari Lal has been fully established and the learned trial Court has rightly convicted and sentenced the appellant herein. 12. I have heard the learned counsel for the appellant, learned State counsel and carefully gone through the record of the trial Court. 13. In this case, this Court first is to examine whether there was any demand of bribe on the part of the appellant or whether he received the bribe in pursuance of the demand. 14. Admittedly, no recovery has been effected from the custody of appellant. Mohinder Singh co-accused, from whose possession a sum of Rs. 400/- were recovered, stood acquitted by the Special Judge. The case set up by the appellant categorically is that on 24.2.1993 "Malkiat Night" was being organized by the administration and there was direction to officers to sell tickets for the Red Cross to collect money to organize the show. Appellant Bihari Lal was entrusted with tickets bearing No. 000251 to 000312 for a sum of Rs. 200/- each for selling the same to the general public. This fact is proved by memo No. 811/Reader dated 1.1.1993 Ex.DB issued by Sub Divisional Officer (C), Garhshankar to different offices including the appellant. It is stand of the appellant that he had already sold the tickets worth Rs. 200/- each for selling the same to the general public. This fact is proved by memo No. 811/Reader dated 1.1.1993 Ex.DB issued by Sub Divisional Officer (C), Garhshankar to different offices including the appellant. It is stand of the appellant that he had already sold the tickets worth Rs. 11200/- and deposited the said amount in the office of Sub-Divisional Officer (C), Garhshankar. However, the appellant was yet to collect Rs. 1200/- by selling tickets to the general public. This plea is corroborated by document Ex.DC letter No. 183/Reader dated 1.3.1993 issued by the Sub Divisional Officer to the Deputy Commissioner, Hoshiarpur. The Sub Divisional Officer submitted his report Ex.DD memo No. 283/Reader dated 8.4.1993 holding that the appellant was only trying to collect the remaining amount of the sale of the tickets but the complainant person had entrapped the appellant in connivance with the vigilance department. Accepting report of the SDO Civil, the Deputy Commissioner, Hoshiarpur wrote a letter Ex.DF No. 38/PA/93 dated 19.4.1993 to the Director Food and Civil Supplied Chandigarh. It is worthwhile to mention here that in the said enquiry before the Sub Divisional Officer even the complainant Surjit Singh P.W.3 sworn an affidavit dated 19.3.1993 placed on record as Ex.DG wherein he categorically mentioned :- "That on 24.2.1993, I was trying to give Rs. 400/- to the said A.F.S.O. as price of the two Red Cross tickets but the said A.F.S.O. asked me to hand over Rs. 400/- to Sh.Mohinder Singh, Chowkidar." 15. During his cross-examination the complainant, Surjit Singh, P.W.- 3, admitted that he had taken two tickets for "Malkiat Night" which was to be held at Garhshankar before the date of the trap. In the circumstances out of the two versions one set up by the prosecution and the other set up by the accused then it is to be seen as to which version is more probable, natural and acceptable. If the defence version is more probable than the prosecution version the benefit of doubt has to be extended to the accused. 16. The defence witnesses produced by the appellant during trial appears to be more trustworthy and believable when read in its entirety with the documentary evidence. The defence plea is proved by Sh.G.S. Bains (Retire), Deputy Commissioner P.W. 4, Sh. Satwant Singh Johal, Additional Deputy Commissioner Development, the then Sub Divisional Officer (C) Garhshankar as P.W.-5. 16. The defence witnesses produced by the appellant during trial appears to be more trustworthy and believable when read in its entirety with the documentary evidence. The defence plea is proved by Sh.G.S. Bains (Retire), Deputy Commissioner P.W. 4, Sh. Satwant Singh Johal, Additional Deputy Commissioner Development, the then Sub Divisional Officer (C) Garhshankar as P.W.-5. The conduct of complainant Surjit Singh is such that even he resile from his furnishing affidavit before the Enquiry Officer. The appellant has proved on record the affidavit Ex.DG sworn by Surjit Singh, P.W.3, by producing Harmesh Raj, P.W.6, who identified Surjit Singh before the Notary Public Sh. Avinash Chander Bhatara P.W.7. 17. Moreover, there is no direct evidence to connect the appellant with the demand raised by the appellant. The case is based on bald statement of the complainant, Surjit Singh, P.W.3. There is no corroboration from any independent witness. The counsel for the appellant has assailed that the shadow witness who was an important witness, the prosecution withheld it may be because no such incident as alleged by the prosecution had taken place. I agree with this contention that non-examination of the shadow witness, especially when no tainted money was recovered from the possession of the appellant, is fatal to the prosecution and an adverse inference has to be drawn against the prosecution which make the prosecution case doubtful. 18. In Jarnail Singh v. State of Haryana, 1991(1) RCR 351, this Court has held as under :- "5. Shadow witness Sukhwinder Singh was not produced in the witness box. Only witness of the alleged demand for illegal gratification is complainant Baldev Sharmar (P.W.6). In similar circumstances, it was observed by this court that in a case like this, to bring home the guilt to the accused, it has to be established by the prosecution that the accused had demanded the bribe from the complainant and had accepted the same in pursuance of the demand. To prove these allegations merely the statement of the complainant or the trap witnesses cannot be relied upon without independent corroboration. It has been held by the Supreme Court in, Dharshan Lal v. Delhi Administration, 1974, CLR 601, "that trap witnesses in a case under Section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, being concerned in success of the trap, the Court should require independent corroboration of their statements before convicting the accused. It has been held by the Supreme Court in, Dharshan Lal v. Delhi Administration, 1974, CLR 601, "that trap witnesses in a case under Section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, being concerned in success of the trap, the Court should require independent corroboration of their statements before convicting the accused. "The same view is expressed in Prem Kumar v. State of Pb., 1976 CLR 366 and Jagjit Singh v. State of Punjab, 1980 CLR 93. It has been held in these cases that no implicit reliance can be placed on the testimony of trap witnesses in the absence of independent witnesses and on that account they spring from tainted source. Need for seeking independent corroboration of the testimony of the complainant and shadow witness was also emphasized in Dalip Singh v. State of Punjab, 1988(1) Recent Criminal Reports 123. It has repeatedly been laid down by the final court that the giver of the bribe is normally to be treated as accomplice and before recording the conviction of the delinquent government servant, independent corroboration of evidence of the accomplice, i.e., the complainant that the shadow witness is normally sought for if not as a matter of law, then at least as a matter of prudence." In Darshan Lal v. Delhi Administration, 1974(2) Chandigarh Law Reporters 611, it was held that trap witnesses in a case under Section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, being interested in the success of the trap, the Court should require independent corroboration of their statements before convicting the accused. In Prem Kumar v. State of Punjab, 1976 Chandigarh Law Reporter (Punjab and Haryana) 366, it has been held that no implicit reliance can be placed on the testimony of trap witnesses in the absence of independent corroboration. Trap witnesses are interested and partisan witnesses and on that count they spring from a tainted source. It was further held that unless there is independent and trustworthy corroboration of the evidence of all these prosecution witnesses, the same could not form basis for conviction of the accused. In Ram Parkash Arora v. The State of Punjab, AIR 1973 SC 498 it has been held by the Apex Court as under :- "It must be remembered that both Joginder Singh (bribe giver) and Dalbir Singh (shadow witness) P.Ws. Were interested and partisan witnesses. In Ram Parkash Arora v. The State of Punjab, AIR 1973 SC 498 it has been held by the Apex Court as under :- "It must be remembered that both Joginder Singh (bribe giver) and Dalbir Singh (shadow witness) P.Ws. Were interested and partisan witnesses. They were concerned in the success of the trap and their evidence must be tested in the same way as that of any other interested witness and in a proper case the court may look for independent corroboration before convicting the accused person." 14.After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, I hold that in the present case afore-mentioned requirements of law have not been satisfied. The independent witness, Sh. Birja Nand, District Revenue Officer, has been withheld by the prosecution. Thus, the alleged demand of bribe and acceptance thereof by the appellant is not supported by any independent evidence and as such, the appellant is entitled to the benefit of doubt in view of the dictum laid down by the Supreme Court in the Darshan Lals case (supra)." 19. Nothing has come on record to establish conclusively that the appellant had demanded bribe from Surjit Singh P.W.-3 in lieu of issue of permit 3000 litres kerosene oil. This leads to the conclusion that there is an absence of demand of illegal gratification and acceptance thereof. Keeping in view of the circumstances and evidence on record, I am of the considered opinion, that the prosecution has failed to prove its case by leading any cogent evidence. Resultantly, this appeal is allowed, the judgment of conviction and sentence is set aside. The appellant was admitted to bail by this Court on 1.08.2000. His bail bonds shall stand discharged. Appeal allowed.